The New Psychology of Atheism

This is a question many people will ask themselves this week – even if only to themselves – as they go to church to commemorate Easter.

Religious beliefs and behaviors are changing. According to the most recent Pew Research Center Religious Landscape Study, the number of Americans who aren’t affiliated with any religion has grown substantially over the past 7 years, rising from 16% to nearly 23% of the population. Some of these individuals are disconnected from organized religion, while others are atheistic or agnostic.

It often is assumed that belief in God, or lack thereof, is based upon intellectual reasoning. For instance, some atheists argue that God is unlikely to exist because of Occam’s razor, a logical principle basically stating that, all things being equal, the view most likely to be true is the one with the least assumptions. Only in the past couple of years have psychological scientists turned their attention to non-intellectual factors that may influence unbelief.

For example, in research published last week by the American Psychological Association, two studies were conducted on relational and emotional factors that may influence those holding atheistic or agnostic views. In both studies, for instance, research participants rated, on a scale from 0 to 10, the extent to which they were influenced by “experiences of disappointment, anger, hurt, alienation, mistrust, or other negative feelings focused on God; seeing God as cruel, uncaring, or punishing.”

In the first of two studies, 171 American adults were asked about their reasons for nonbelief, as well as emotions they felt toward a god or gods that they hypothetically imagined, and various indicators of negative emotionality. Results showed that 54% of those who self-reported that they were atheists or agnostics indicated some relational and emotional reasons for nonbelief. In the second study, 72% of 429 American adults who expressed some level of atheism or agnosticism endorsed similar reasons. In both studies, the extent to which research participants revealed relational and emotional reasons for nonbelief was associated with various indicators of negative emotionality, such as trait anger, psychological entitlement, and fearful / preoccupied attachment styles.

This new research is consistent with the results of earlier research showing that 44% of atheists self-reported that at least some of their doubts, or at least some of their decision not to believe in God, were due to emotional reasons. These individuals, whom the researchers called “emotionally engaged atheists,” were more characterized by negative emotionality, as well as stronger negative reactions to stressful events, compared with non-emotionally engaged atheists.

This research complements decades of other research on non-intellectual factors influencing those who are religious. Overall, this literature shows that religious beliefs are influenced by a dynamic interplay among biological, psychological, social, and emotional factors. For instance, behavioral genetics research shows that approximately 50% of the individual differences among us in levels of personal religiousness can be explained by a genetic predisposition, perhaps rooted in underlying personality factors. Other research shows that loss of control often results in changes to religious belief and behavior.

None of this says anything about the truthfulness of the existence of God, or lack thereof. However, it does add evidence to the view that non-intellectual factors are implicated in religious beliefs - whether those beliefs affirm or deny the existence of the supernatural.

Andy Tix, Ph.D., also often blogs at his site The Quest for a Good Life. You can sign up to receive e-mail notifications of new posts at this site.

Those who claim emotional hurt and call themselves atheists are generally considered angry theists by the atheist communities. I think this study is severely flawed due to a misconception of what atheists really are.

I was raised in family of intelectualls who were all atheists. My childhood was great. My father was loving, devoted man who really cared about me. We always talked about everything, science, religion, sex, love, even abortion very openly.

The J-C version of god as a loving father is a more recent American Christianity prosperity gospel version.

You obviously haven't read your bible.

My dad is a great, super-loving and caring man. The ONLY thing that has ever bothered me about being an atheist is "knowing" that when he dies, he'll just be dead and I'll never see him again. Same goes for my grandfather.

I can't make myself believe in non-sense just because I want to. Believe me, I've tried.

@Prati Hara
"Most western Atheists are really theists - Government is their God, secularism is their religion and politicians/media are their priesthood. They are opposite sides of the same coin."

I disagree with the above, contemptuous and dismissive comment. If you have evidence to support this view please provide it. Otherwise, please seek to understand the true nature of atheism in the west, which according to my experience is a considered view held to be true by many decent, intelligent and compassionate human beings.

What type of article do you expect from a person who is an expert on pyschology of religion and spirituality? Of course, there is bias written all over.
Most atheist are so because it is just silly to believe in God when we have so much of information around which simply proves otherwise. Is it possible to have a god in around 13 billion light years distance around us? Most atheists are much more well read, particularly about religion, than believers.
I just read at many places that over 50 percent americans are unhappy at wirk and in their marriages! What does it do to the quoted data in this article?

If that doesn't work, you can just google articles on behavioral genetics and religion, and you should find several pop up.

I'm not taking it personal at all. It does amaze me how much this "sets off" so many people. I guess some people think they're above relational and emotional factors affecting them. Maybe others, but not them!

click on your link and look at related articles. Never mind the fact that most are from1999.... every single article has a pro religion heading. These are peer reviewed by religion peers. Not one actual Atheist peer . Peered reviewed is a meaningless term when all your peers have the same agenda. To promote religion as the better option.

Thanks for your interest in this blog, Marilyn. What you say is simply not true.

There are four links to psychology articles here. All come from peer-reviewed journals from the American Psychological Association, two of which are from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, one of the best academic journals in Psychology.

One article comes from the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. This also is not a "religion journal" in the sense that it favors pro-religion views. It simply has to do with the scientific study of religion, and includes editors and peer reviewers that are both religious and non-religious.

The ONLY sane response to religion is RIDICULE. The same ridicule shown to people who have witnessed UFO'S or Sasquatch. (I defense if those last two, we have plenty of video and photographs... and that equals a metric-ton more concrete evidence than any religion can make claim to.)

I think it's too bad that you're adding anger to this. I imagine that you're angry for good reasons - such as all the bad that religion has done to perpetuate evil in the world. However, suggesting or acting with ridicule, I fear, only will continue this cycle of prejudice and violence.

I hope you can think through a more effective and peaceful response to those who have caused the world damage so that you do not contribute more to it.

Anger?? You must think you're pretty good to be able to read anger into my short comment. No... ( although there is much one could justifiably be livid about) I'm thinking long term. Look at how marginalized UFO and Sasquatch "believers" are. The reason? Ridicule. In fairly short order, too... 40-50 years for UFO's and the ridicule train started rolling for the Sasquatch folks as soon as the P.G. Film was made public.

And, I agree with the ridicule statement. No anger -- just frustration.

Frustration at the endless articles trying to show that atheists are lacking in a huge list of positive attributes. There's one I commented on a few minutes ago that puts we atheists on the autism spectrum. Talk about condescension. And then, you dismiss our responses as "angry."

You'd be angry too if you were in an extreme minority that is treated, spoken to, written about, as if we just don't get it...to put it nicely.

Ridicule is a useful tool to use against extremists. I don't use it against garden-varity religious people because they're not pushing a crazy agenda like fundamentalists are...the Islamic state, Westboro Baptist Church for examples. And ridicule is a tool that mainstream religious people should also use against these people.

Unfortunately, ridicule has been used against atheists for far too long and we're simply fighting back. That's how I see it.

Further proof that it's atheism that is intolerant and hateful, not theism or agnosticism.

You people expect us to respect you when you constantly abuse, harass and demonize us for not agreeing with your superstitious beliefs? You honestly think that you deserve to be tolerated when all you do is treat everyone who doesn't think like you like they're mentally retarded and dangerous?

Let's go to the "reason" rally! "We atheists are so smart and logical! We are so loving, tolerant and accepting of everyone... except Christians! But who cares?! Christians don't believe in the Pokemon magic that we believe in, so that means they're not human! And because we are so kind and good, we relentlessly bully and verbally abuse anyone and everyone who believes in God... especially the Christian God! Mocking and emotionally tormenting everyone who disagrees with us is a good thing because our lords and saviors Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens told us so! Never mind the fact that Sam Harris wants murdering theists to be legal, or that Dicky Dawkins is a pseudointellectual pseudoscientist and a cult leader, or that Christopher Hitchens was a talentless plagiarist who peddled bigotry for a living! They are/were still good people regardless of all those things because we say so! And since we know everything because science, we am right! And if you disagree with us, you're a retard! So join atheism today! If you don't, we'll sue you, harass you, threaten you or even kill you!"

You atheists are so weak. You're nothing more than arrogant bullies who put yourselves up on pedestals and shit on everyone doesn't look or think like you, all because you have an emotional boo-boo because that meanie God didn't make you President of the United States or give you a pony for Christmas.

Grow up and get over yourselves atheists, you miserable, worthless cunts!

"Muh cosmic fart! Don't criticize muh lojik and REEEzin or you'll make me cry! I'm telling on you! ACLU! HELP ME! CHRISTIANS ARE STILL ALLOWED TO HAVE RIGHTS AND IT HURTS MY LITTLE ATHEIST FEELINGS! MAKE IT STOP! SAVE ME! REEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
- Every atheist ever.

They know that atheism is a fairytale for overgrown children who can't handle reality. That's why they project their insecurities on those of us who are right (aka Christians).

Btw, congrats on not being sued by atheist retards for using the word "Christmas" in your comment! LOL! (Your comment is amazing, btw!)

I wonder how long it'll be before some whiny little pansy-assed atheist derpshit reads our comments, gets triggered, and screams and cries while shitting his diaper and threatening to take away our basic human rights (like they always do). My money's on five minutes. I'm not afraid of atheists, though. They're all pathetic, weak, and stupid. A first-grader has a higher IQ and better debating capacity than the average atheist.

Be prepared for anti-atheist backlash like you've never seen before. For thousands of years, theists have been afraid to come out as theists in the hostile environment created by atheists. Not anymore. You can only push people so many times before they finally start pushing back.

Although it's great to get so many comments on this, I worry about the "us" vs. "them" thinking that is starting to unfold. No where in this article or in the research are atheists or agnostics put down. In fact, although I am Christian, I also consider myself agnostic, and I would be included in these samples.

In my opinion, each person - irrespective of belief or group - deserves respect.

Just to clarify, the way the researchers defined "atheism" and "agnosticism" mostly was based on self-report of the research participants. This differed a bit in each study, helping to explain the different percentages. The first study included those who personally considered themselves atheists or agnostics. The second study had participants rate themselves, and they were included if they indicated any level of atheism or agnosticism.

Beginning with Freud, people who are religious have been suspect to skepticism among psychological thinkers and researchers. Freud famously suggested that religion was the result of a kind a wish for security. More recent research has suggested that there is a genetic predisposition to belief (and unbelief). The feeling that one lacks control also tends to influence religious belief. So, biological, psychological, social, and emotional factors also influence those who are religious and spiritual. They influence everyone.

The insights of these studies is that the same also is true for those who are not religious

Maybe I'm missing someone, but please feel free to share how you feel any of this is "biased." It seems like pretty straightforward psychology to me.

The early negative emotional experiences are probably to do with having to be afraid to express their true beliefs in the hostile environment created by religious people. All religious people are toxic and cruel and completely oblivious to the damage that they do to others, instead believing that they are good people. No person who believes in god can be a good person, no matter what acts of charity they may do, they will always cause more harm in the world than is equal to the good they do.

Personally, I think that such all or nothing thinking - stereotyping and prejudice really - is one of the great problems facing the world today.[/quote]

I would ask you to consider that you, yourself are maybe displaying some prejudice in your writing, that is contributing to the stereotype of the atheist (or agnostic) as an angry, wounded human being? Is it possible that the studies that you cite (and your own conclusions) are colored, biased, if you will by your deeply-held own beliefs? In my case, I was raised in a deeply religious and intellectual home. I also am a human being, who from the earliest age was subject, to what I believe is a common human experience, that of episodes of transcendental states. Now in the latter part of my life, I have come to the conclusion that these experiences are (1) not special to me (2) are not a connection with one prime mover, i.e. a God (3) not an indication that there is a part of me that is immortal, in the Christian sense. My research into psychology and, more importantly, the nature of consciousness itself, has led me to my sense of truth. As I stated above in response to a previous comment, I find that on the whole, atheism is not a reaction against the idea of a God, but rather in the way those ideas are expressed by the organized religions who are the keepers of various ideas. It is those "religious" people who have most at a stake , threatened if you will by atheism and agnosticism, they continue to maintain the stereotype of the angry, weak and wounded atheist. I would ask that in your future thoughts and writings you give due consideration to how you may be contributing to bias and prejudice against an already despised and maligned section of humanity.

I can see some basis for the argument that belief or lack thereof is genetically biased, since intellect is genetically dictated to a large degree. Short parents have short kids, white parents have white kids, dumb parents, which often lack curiosity about things other than when the next reality show airs, will, as a rule, have lower IQ children. And yes, stats show a direct correlation between IQ and belief, the more intelligent a person, the less likely they are to believe in a superhuman creator.

As far as respecting other's views, I would be all for that noble notion, IF, I was not subjected to being governed by those that insist on inserting their beliefs into the laws and rules by which I must adhere, under the threat of imprisonment if I don't obey.

So, yes, if beliefs were kept within the confines of the walls of churches and homes, go for it, but when those notions are thrust upon my rights, that is not really "agreeing to disagree".

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Kelly. The correlation between intelligence and belief in God isn't particularly strong, but you're right, there is a correlation.

How we all live together in a pluralistic society is ultimately my concern as well. I understand your hesitation. Probably the answer is not going to reaching agreement on everything, but more the way we act toward each other as we disagree.

Many atheists had weak fathers. "I had to figure out all the rules on my own, and now you're telling me I must submit to you?" They also believe that humans are good by nature and corrupted only by addiction, mental illness, inadequate love and acceptance during the 'plastic' stage of childhood, and of course lately, radicalization by religious extremists. The irony of course, that humans are not good by nature but in fact master justifiers - the lesson the Judeo Christian God tried to teach us while we were busy discovering that we didn't need Him. Another irony is that many atheists have various supernatural and superstitious beliefs (aka 'sorcery').

You are making some very broad assertions about what atheists believe. None of which are true of the majority of atheists. I suggest that you go talk to some atheists (at least online) and ask them what they believe. Especially if you expect to be taken seriously.

I don't know about weak fathers... I don't know enough atheists at that level of intimacy to make that judgement... I also couldn't say about what atheists "believe" regarding innate human nature, but I can tell you most assuredly, that I don't believe in sorcery, magic, or any of that supernatural nonsense we lump in with religion. What I suspect the commenter is doing, is mistaking computer gaming for belief. Tons of people play dungeons and dragons type computer games, in which sorcery is a main part of the story line... it doesn't mean they literally believe in said things, just that it's a popular form of entertainment. There are an equal number playing games set in the future, but we don't mistake them as "beliefs".

I wasn't referring to you. Nor was I referring to games. I was referring to real things like ghosts and "Hollywood Medium". At least, real to many self-described atheists. So they are not always as principled as some (not you) would like to think. Nevertheless, I agree we should give people the "benefit of the doubt". But I still think it's really funny and ironic, but I will refrain from making further remarks for fear of being misinterpreted on an issue where many are keen to declare the other's 'problem' is a failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality!

As someone who has seen the ‘atheists are just angry at god so they pretend not to believe in him’ argument, I can see how your article could be used as evidence that psychology agrees with it.
If I were to look at things that I’m angry at concerning the biblical god, I would say that I’m angry that I was told the Noah’s ark story as a happy story when it is genocide on the grandest scale. I have angry feelings about genocide. And in the hypothetical situation where the biblical god is real and he really did that thing, I would be angry at him.
The two abstracts cited in the article (not the ones relating to genetics) mention the atheists/agnostics considering a ‘hypothetical’ god or gods. If someone asked me questions about the biblical god, I would cite the story of Noah as one that should incite anger. The story of Noah is not why I’m an atheist, but it seems that being angry about it would have put me in the category of having negative emotions about god.
Now I’m not arguing that there is not a correlation between negative feelings about the proposed biblical god and atheism, but I think the negative feelings develop after the realization that god isn’t real and the atheist rereads the story of Noah- no longer as one safe in the boat, but as one who was left to drown in the rising tide.

The issue here is discussed and to some degree explained by M. D. Faber in his several books. Becoming God's Children, The Magic of Prayer, and The Psychological Roots of Religion.
Bowlby's Attachment Theory is also very helpful.

Of course, the authors of this 'study' do not discuss the issues of adults who still feel a need to believe in an imaginary being, and who still feel the need for the approval of a proxy father figure long past their years of childhood dependency - the need for a god, of course, stemming from an inability to ever grow up into a mature adult capable of independent action.

The inability of the religious to see that their beliefs have all of the same characteristics, and are justified by as much evidence, as beliefs in fairies, pixies, and leprechauns, is evidence of their failed graduation into rational, adult thinking and the continuation of childlike magical cognitive processes.

Alyssa . if you think Tina `s blurb is nice... yesterday I picked up a gorgeous Chrysler from bringing in $9680 this-past/4 weeks and even more than ten grand this past-month . this is certainly the best work I have ever had . I actually started 8-months ago and almost straight away started bringin in more than $75
——————– ◐◐◐◐◐◐◐◐◐◐ w­w­w.f­a­c­t­o­r­y­o­f­i­n­c­o­m­e.­c­o­­m

For all of you believers, I would recommend some great books about atheism and religion. Maybe you should educate yourself.
God Delusion,Richard Dawkins
End of Faith,Sam Harris
Breaking the Spell,Daniel Dennett
God is not great,C.Hitchens

Mr. Barker was a believer, missionary, and church musician who went from devout believer to atheist.

He lays out a great step by step explanation as to how he did it that is very illuminating as to how an atheist thinks. His book is one of the best I've read on the "chinks in the armor" he began to have about religion over time.

It also cost him a lot -- his wife -- for example. It shows the price people pay for beginning to think for themselves.

All snark aside, I have read those books that you two because, unlike atheists, we theists actually read more than one type of book. And I've got to say... all of those books are hysterically bad. If I were dumb enough to be an atheist, I would be embarrassed.

Read REAL books, like
"What Christians Believe" by C.S. Lewis
"The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton
"The New Atheist Denial of History" by Bordon Painter
"The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel
"Always Ready" by Greg L. Bahnsen
"On Guard" by William Lane Craig

Those are all great, life-changing books. I doubt an atheist would be smart enough to understand them, but give them a chance. You'll be amazed.

There are so many possible social and psychological reasons why it might be it appears there are currently emotional benefits of having a religious based ideology over no belief that I think it's short-sighted to say this is evidence that non-intellectual factors are implicated in religious beliefs... For example, if the 'tables were turned' and the leading nation in the world had more non-believers than believers and all these non-believers had some common factor that brought them together that helped foster communities, then perhaps they would be better off emotionally. As it is, perhaps to be an atheist puts people in a position of being an 'outsider' and this affects their emotional state, or perhaps atheism draws more interest from people who see themselves as 'outsiders' and this naturally makes a pattern appear, again perhaps with no relevance to the fact they don't have a belief in supernatural.

That said it would seem like in the past, and in tribal societies, belief in supernatural things is the natural state for human tribes to 'indulge' in. I think to look at the way humans evolved to have belief CAN be considered possible evidence that non-intellectual factors are implicated in religious beliefs but I don't think we can psychoanalyse our societies now and imply anything about it, because we're living in times that are so far from our natural state of existence that it's like looking at Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment and saying mice are emotionally better off as asocial animals because the mice that avoided all interaction with other mice were the ones who appeared to have the happiest lives